FinalHavenLarp.com

Look, I'd really prefer we leave religion out of the larp. Also, for pity sake can we not bring back the old ancient days of the witch-hunter discussion.

Aurora wrote:Look, I'd really prefer we leave religion out of the larp. Also, for pity sake can we not bring back the old ancient days of the witch-hunter discussion.

The problem is that it's ALREADY there, in various shapes and forms, not that it isn't.

I'm not speaking for or against it's inclusion. I'm saying that you can't say it's "not allowed" and then allow people to "sneak" things in, or use religious terminology in your rulebook.

1.) It's a fantasy game. I think if we can handle fucking cannibalism, rape, torture, violence, racism, slavery, murder and so and and so forth, but we can't handle role-played religious themes, then I think that says more about our own insecurities regarding our own beliefs which may not be so "unshakable" as we want to believe they are if they are threatened by something that supposedly isn't even real within our own beliefs, because it certainly isn't being done for "everyone's" comfort.

Nope your not understanding my objection which has nothing to do with the above, but that is ok.

For instance, I personally think RAPE or other forms of coerced sexual activities (such as someone being charmed) are pretty fucking vile, but I know of at least one (and now that I think about it, more) situation that involved some sicko evil NPC character that kidnapped, abused and raped another NPC character (albeit off-scene). We didn't put an artificial wall up saying "No eluding to rape. It's just not possible in our world. It doesn't exist and it doesn't happen and no one has ever thought of it, EVER."

Your right perhaps themes of rape should not be in the game. I could get behind this.

2.) I really feel like the "no religion" thing turns into a sort of artificial 4th wall that people go OOC to tell someone: "There is no religion/gods in Phanterra." Rather than a "let's keep it subtle" or "You can believe whatever you want, but it's not supported by the game world."

Yep

3.) It's allowed. It's just allowed...err...inconsistently. For example, Donovan's "light" worshiping. Maybe it was allowed because it "fits" Chris' real-world Christian beliefs similarly to Tolkien's? Just for thought on how it APPEARS.

Doug said it best. Subtle and that is how he plays it so never has really been a problem, proof that the no religion thing is working.

4.) Doesn't matter if it's "real" or not. People make up things to believe in all the time and it's about as entrenched as breathing.

Yep

You're somewhat wrong on the LOTR thing there, Chris. While it doesn't affect the story, overmuch (and indeed, Tolkien was a Christian), there were the Maiar (sp?) and the Ainiur, and assorted godlike beings under the "overgod." I have a hard time buying that none of them were ever worshiped. Tolkien (and other folks) can stress the point that they weren't gods, but if they existed in the setting as powerful beings and were mentioned, people worshiped them whether they were answered or not, the same as people worship/ped elemental forces or ANY religion in our own world.

I was pointing out how belief is a subtle thing throughout the books, but it is actually an important theme that drives all of the stories. If you would like I will let you borrow the letters from Tolkien to his friends on the subject. Basically I am not eluding I am quoting.

5.) To be fair, while I've heard PLAYERS say "No Religion!" to other players, I've never heard a GM IN-GAME say no or to stop because it might have offensive religious implications. I only ever hear it commented on by GMs on the boards.

Yep

6.) It's not a rule in the book, for what that's worth, so I don't feel obligated to consider it as such in my roleplaying and do not let it hinder either my words or my actions. That's what we have safewords for.

Hmmm

7.) When you leave a void, players will fill it with SOMETHING whether you like it or not.

That's the point, but doesnt make it truth.

8.) I said it before, I'll say it again: SAFEWORDS. They get reviewed at EVERY game on meeting. The game isn't edited for "non-offensiveness" because we all prefer different styles of play. I am very accepting, and am entertained by, even the darker sides of storytelling when I PCing. USE THE SAFEWORDS IF SOMETHING IS BOTHERING YOU.

Couldnt agree more

9.) I don't have to play. I'm not forced to be here. I can quit whenever I want (maybe).

Yep

BUT, as my closing thoughts: I'd take strong offense with someone coming into MY birthed up from the ground game or story and telling me what I am REQUIRED to do based on their own opinions like it's their decision.

And it's your game, so until I'm told otherwise, you have that right to make things whatever you like, whether I agree with it or not, whether I think you are consistent or fair with this issue or not, and just for the record, I don't and that's ok too.

These two thoughts are completely at odds with each other so no idea what you are saying, but I think I couldnt agree more.

Good day!

You too!

Yeah, I checked the rulebook because I thought there was something about no religion at FH but it is not there. It's not even hinted at.

Guess that means my new characters coming in as a crusader!!! Time to bring some Jesus to these heathens!!!

Just kidding! I'm sure now that it's been pointed out there will be an addendum.

summary of my views.

established religions within the rules(like in d+d) = meh, dont really care or am offended in any way.

faiths created by players = good roleplay, and people that have a problem with them probubly wouldnt play a fantasy game.

Zeira wrote:Just kidding! I'm sure now that it's been pointed out there will be an addendum.

Nah, this comes up every year (sometimes twice!). I highly doubt it will ever be added, just like Witch-Hunter and Druid and at least one or two more will probably always remain named the same. I'm unsure as to whether it should be, but that's mainly because of my disagreement on the lack of consistency/define-ment.

GM_Chris wrote: Nope your not understanding my objection which has nothing to do with the above, but that is ok.

You're right, I guess I don't understand your objection, and really, it doesn't matter WHAT your reasons are anyway for the purposes of this discussion. They can be whatever. It would be nice to understand, because people talk about it like it is a big insecurity, and if this actually ISN'T the case, I'd really love to stop thinking that.

What I ASSUME is that you are offended by seeing people roleplay a pretend religion, because somehow it goes against your religious beliefs and offends you. My counter argument is that there is potentially a lot of offensive subject matter in the game and that it is ALL totally not real.

GM_Chris wrote: These two thoughts are completely at odds with each other so no idea what you are saying, but I think I couldnt agree more.

They aren't at odds at all. It's your world (unless I somehow hear otherwise), you can make up whatever you want for it. I can certainly disagree with the way it's handled (I disagree here all the time, you've all seen my posts), but because it's yours, and not mine I support your right to disagree with my opinion, the same way I would probably tell someone where they could shove it if they found any of my creative works offensive and wanted me to censor or alter it in some way. Especially because it's an issue of opinions and no one on either side actually suffers for it's inclusion or exclusion.

GM_Chris wrote: That's the point, but doesnt make it truth.

I think I was unclear and you misunderstand me. I was saying that, because of the loose background nature of the game, there is an information void. Since players don't have a lot of written background to work with, they will make up what they want, some of which, some people may declare "incorrect" and that IS truth, even though it's NOT a player's fault that they don't have that knowledge. This includes religious symbolism or beliefs, since they tend to play a big role in a lot of fantasy systems that people are familiar with.

I don't have a problem WITH or AGAINST religion in FH. It shouldn't be "supported" by the GMs with a pantheon or deities or whatever.

But I do have an issue with "the 4th wall" regarding it, and I do have an issue telling people "No religion," but essentually allowing religion. To me, that's like cheating. But again, I guess since it's not a rule anyway, it's not.

Maybe I'm piddling with semantics, but I'm obviously not the only one confused here, and it's also hard on newbies who I've seen get literally chewed out over this by other players because they don't have a clue what is meant either, if they even know anything about it. If you are going to allow it in the fashion you have been, maybe it would be better for you to say:

"Haven and it's staff does not endorse, deny or support (through plots, roleplay or otherwise) the existence of any deities or religions in the Phantera setting. There are no large groups of organized religion on Phantera. We do not discourage your character from having personal faiths and beliefs, but because it can be a problem/sensitive subject, we do ask that you keep it a subtle part of your roleplaying, at best."

It's the current doublespeak I have a problem with.

"Haven and it's staff does not endorse, deny or support (through plots, roleplay or otherwise) the existence of any deities or religions in the Phantera setting. There are no large groups of organized religion on Phantera. We do not discourage your character from having personal faiths and beliefs, but because it can be a problem/sensitive subject, we do ask that you keep it a subtle part of your roleplaying, at best."

Not a bad idea

What I ASSUME is that you are offended by seeing people roleplay a pretend religion, because somehow it goes against your religious beliefs and offends you. My counter argument is that there is potentially a lot of offensive subject matter in the game and that it is ALL totally not real.

Something being offensive is not enough to ban the activity, nessissarily. In my case I find it morally wrong. I do not find fantasy topics on rape and other fantasy subjects morally wrong, but honestly I am on the edge with some of it. I go back and forth with even LARP'ing has any benifit at all and if the entire thing should be killed. Now because of some bible research I am rethinking some of my oppiions on fantasy religion and definitly up to discussing the topic.

They aren't at odds at all. It's your world (unless I somehow hear otherwise), you can make up whatever you want for it. I can certainly disagree with the way it's handled (I disagree here all the time, you've all seen my posts), but because it's yours, and not mine I support your right to disagree with my opinion, the same way I would probably tell someone where they could shove it if they found any of my creative works offensive and wanted me to censor or alter it in some way. Especially because it's an issue of opinions and no one on either side actually suffers for it's inclusion or exclusion.

Yep I couldnt agree more

Now I am getting alot of different stuff from people. The answer I am not hearing from peopl is WHY you want religion faith what have you, what do you think is missing. Saying something like "well we cant have palandins" is surface crap. I want the core reason you think religion or faith or what have you should be in the game. The truth is I believe I already know the answer, but I want to see if you can figure it out.

Thanks

I don't think anyone has ever said that they definitely want deities included in FH or any other LARP that I've been a part of. Some LARPS it's an intrinsic part of the game (VtM Serenity) and some it's not. Either way I think the bottom line is it's all fake, none of it's real, heck I pulled off a Christian shepherd and I'm one of the proponents that religion (not spirituality) causes more divides than anything else on the planet. Discussing it has never gotten any of us any where. Nothing has changed on this subject at any of the LARPS I play because of any of these discussions. People do their thing and no one raises a big enough stink on either side of it to effect any change. All though perhaps Heidi has finally gotten someone to see that stating, even just on the boards or in person no religion and then allowing rp of religion and putting religion in the book makes absolutely no sense.

I think a GM or NPC religion is bad idea. If there is any religion it should be PC driven and on down low.

Now I think a GM/NPC driven morality code of what is considered right and wrong is a good thing. That is what laws are for. Is it religion, no, becasue there is no faith aspect. It is simple laws the culture deems right or wrong.

Can these lines blurr together, yes! But as we have seen in FH, if there is no GM driven concept of right and wrong, the majority of the PC's will be grey and do what's best for them. This is a game, and why whould a person limit themselves if there is no consinent punishment for doing what modern day laws would consider wrong and illegal. Only a few playes have chosen to limit themselves this way becasue of there type of character they want to play. But the majority of people will do whats best for them, even though the player knows it is wrong.

I personaly believe Chris and Mike is just doing a gaint Phsyc expermenent on us all!

Nah, this comes up every year (sometimes twice!). I highly doubt it will ever be added, just like Witch-Hunter and Druid and at least one or two more will probably always remain named the same. I'm unsure as to whether it should be, but that's mainly because of my disagreement on the lack of consistency/define-ment.

These don't need to be changed, they shouldn't be changed, and what FH has existed for how long and now people are starting to say something.

I swear if I gotta change the wording again or risk loosing my character I'm going to be royally ticked off and it's a perfect example of why I don't want to see religion at FH for people take their beliefs way to seriously.

I'm personally more of a spirituality type of person and a karma type of person. I respect people's beliefs but in the same vein I'd like the respect to come from the other side that I don't wish their point of view shoved down my throat either.

And thus the slippery slope of having religion at a larp.

I'm all for subtle like Dallid and the other Druids can do and heck even ansesters are fine. Heck Aurora has an honor code and goes with the more dwarven thing, but I don't want an I have to pray to x fake religious figure. I also think this might create a further barrier between pcs for if people take the zellot thing to far I can see things fracturing even more then they are already.

I trust in Mike's, Chris's, Bill's, and the other GMs decision on this and seriously this game has existed for a bit and they've done a bang up job.

I'm all for subtle like Dallid and the other Druids can do and heck even ansesters are fine. Heck Aurora has an honor code and goes with the more dwarven thing, but I don't want an I have to pray to x fake religious figure. I also think this might create a further barrier between pcs for if people take the zellot thing to far I can see things fracturing even more then they are already

But why? A few have said these words. Why?

I am really curious/

Then I guess you'd have to ask yourself why is there religion in the real world?

For some it gives them a purpose, a motivation for your actions. To have a higher calling with rewards/penalties in the afterlife of how you spend your day to day life. It gives some people the idea of a morals and why something is right or wrong.

Why is that zombie walking around bad? Why is the person that made that corpse into zombie bad? Shouldn't they have every right to walk the earth of Phantarra as your character does?

Aurora wrote: I'm all for subtle like Dallid and the other Druids can do and heck even ansesters are fine.

Then you support/accept the existence of religious beliefs in the game. Period.

I can't accept being told "No religion" but religious names and themes being expressly allowed by the book. If you are going to exclude it, you need to take the religious names and symbolism out of the "officially supported rules" of the game.

And on a side note, I'm not sure how changing the name of "Witch-Hunter" to "Magic-Hunter" would somehow "take your character" away from you. You define your chaarcter's chosen abilities (and your character) however you want to as long as you still follow the mechanics, the name should have very little to do with it. The abilities/discipline isn't the issue, the terminology is.

Under my example of how it SHOULD be worded in my post above, I still think the terminology inclusion of "druid," "witch-hunter" and "saint" is sticky, but it's not exactly hypocritical, and even if someone wanted to call themselves a "witch-hunter," it would still be acceptable, just the same as we have at least ONE character who DOES call herself a witch.

Atrum Draconus wrote:All though perhaps Heidi has finally gotten someone to see that stating, even just on the boards or in person no religion and then allowing rp of religion and putting religion in the book makes absolutely no sense.

That is 100% my argument wrapped up in a pretty bow.

Don't say "NO RELIGION" when you allow religion. A duck is a duck. Say something else, like my worded example.

I don't have to bring my personal beliefs or how I feel about the value or harm of religious themes in the game into it at all. That is NOT what my argument is.

Aurora wrote: I'm personally more of a spirituality type of person and a karma type of person. I respect people's beliefs but in the same vein I'd like the respect to come from the other side that I don't wish their point of view shoved down my throat either.

Out of curiosity, from an in-game standpoint, I'm not seeing how the elven genocide against the PCs or the constant racial bickering between PCs (In character) is somehow less in terms of causing "fracturing" or getting beliefs "shoved down your throat." And none of it is "real" beliefs, either.

In-game conflict is part of the game, regardless of the reasons for it. And it exists, regardless.

Heidi I support it as more of a moral code and not religion so don't go twisting my words there or putting words in my mouth!!!!!!!

As for the other, I've been on this topic of wording before and I got presented with come up with another name for what you do or you aren't playing it anymore. Put me in a box like that and you will have one very angry player all because people decide to be super sensitive.

Ironic again to me it takes however long this game has been going on for the protests on wording of certain things to begin. I'd say the time to get picky on what paths were called in the book should have been done within the first three years..not now.

Chris, the subtle thing is ok because it's not cramming stuff down people's throats and as I stated above to me is more of the moral fiber the pc has, not worshiping x, y, or z god. I think that's why it works instead of some unified, formal, and fake god or gods. That's why my friend it works.